Here's the filing for those who haven't read it.
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1 Filed 12/12/11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Northern Division)
BLIND INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES OF MARYLAND
3345 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21227
130 M Street, Apartment 806
Washington, D.C. 20002
District of Columbia
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
1102 Taylor Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21227
14 Dartmouth Drive
Lewes, Delaware 19958
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE MARYLAND WHITE CANE LAW
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-3562
ROUTE 40 PAINTBALL PARK
11011 Pulaski Highway
White Marsh, Maryland 21162-1813
Serve on Resident Agent:
Miriam Maliszewski 2733 Ady Road
Forest Hill, Maryland 21050-1805
Plaintiffs Marco Carranza, James Konechne, and Ronald Cagle (hereinafter “Individual Plaintiffs”) and Blind Industries and Services of Maryland (“BISM”) file this Complaint against Defendant Route 40 Paintball Park for civil rights violations and allege as follows:
1. This action seeks to put an end to civil rights violations committed by Defendant against the blind. By denying blind persons the opportunity to participate in paintball activities, Defendant is excluding blind persons from full and equal access to a public accommodation enjoyed by others without disabilities.
2. This case arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, and the Maryland White Cane Law, Md. Code Ann., Human Services § 7-704.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) because of Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(
because Defendant does business in this district and the acts constituting violations of the ADA and the Maryland White Cane Law complained of occurred in this district.
5. Plaintiff BISM is a statutorily-created nonprofit entity responsible for maintaining an education and training center for the blind. BISM’s mission includes both helping the blind reach their potential for living and working independently and enhancing the public’s attitudes concerning blindness. BISM and its constituents have long been actively involved in promoting independence for the blind, including equal access to places of public accommodation. BISM constituents would
participate in Defendant’s paintball activities but for Defendant’s denial of service. BISM sues on behalf of its constituents, as well as in furtherance of its extensive efforts and expenditure of resources in promoting two of its principal missions: independence of the blind and equal access for the blind. Defendant’s discriminatory policies frustrates these missions and results in the diversion of its resources to address Defendant’s discriminatory practices.
6. Marco Carranza is a citizen and resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. Carranza is legally blind. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Carranza was the Adult Services Manager at BISM. In the role of instructor, Mr. Carranza supervised blind individuals in all manner of training, including cane travel and other mobility skills. He enjoys paintball as a leisure activity.
7. Plaintiff James Konechne is a citizen of Baltimore County, Maryland and resides in Baltimore. Mr. Konechne is legally blind. He is a braille instructor at BISM. In his free time, Mr. Konechne is a paintball enthusiast and has enjoyed playing the sport throughout the country.
8. Plaintiff Ronald Cagle is a citizen of Sussex County, Delaware and has a permanent residence in Lewes, DE. Mr. Cagle is legally blind. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Cagle was a student and trainee at BISM. He has had experience playing paintball both while sighted and blind.
9. Route 40 Paintball Park (“the Park”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Baltimore County, Maryland.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10. The Park is a facility open to the public where enthusiasts of the sport of paintball participate in paintball matches against one another.
11. The Park organizes paintball matches, sets the rules, and arranges for referees to officiate the matches. The Park charges participants to use the fields on which the matches take place and also rents equipment and supplies.
12. The Park requires that participants fill out a “Waiver and Release of Liability” and that participants use safety equipment, such as goggles.
13. The sport of paintball is played on a field of predetermined bounds by opposing teams seeking to eliminate opposing team members by shooting them with air-propelled, paint-filled gelatin balls called paintballs while attempting to complete a stated objective, which varies by game.
14. As part of BISM’s adult CORE rehabilitation and training program, blind students must plan and execute a group social outing to demonstrate competency in mobility skills. One student selected an outing to play paintball and made the required reservation with the Park for Saturday, May 21, 2011 at noon.
15. On the morning of May 21, 2011, a group of two BISM instructors and six BISM students began their long walk to the Park, relying on their cane travel and other mobility skills to navigate their way to their final destination.
16. Having arrived at the Park at the appointed time, the Individual Plaintiffs checked in with the Park’s staff. The Individual Plaintiffs were dismayed when Park employees and Park owner, Miriam Maliszewski, told them that they would not be allowed to participate in any paintball matches because they were blind. Based on past experience with paintball matches, the Individual Plaintiffs explained how they would safely navigate the playing field and participate in the match as they had done at other paintball parks. The Park employees and owner renewed their refusal. The Individual Plaintiffs then told the Park employees and owner that the Maryland White Cane Law required that they be allowed to participate in paintball matches. The Park employees and owner, for a third time, refused to allow the Individual Plaintiffs to participate in a paintball match.
17. The Individual Plaintiffs then contacted the Baltimore County Police Department to report the Park’s refusal to allow them to participate in a paintball match, a misdemeanor violation of the
Maryland White Cane Law. The police arrived and attempted to mediate the dispute, but the Park persisted in its refusal of service.
18. On August 16, 2011, Officer Trageser issued a Baltimore County Police Department Crime Report (CC# 11-141-0783) for the Park’s violation of the Maryland White Cane Law.
19. On June 10, 2011, though not required to do so, the undersigned sent a letter to the Park owner requesting an opportunity to discuss an amicable resolution of the dispute arising from the Park’s violations of Individual Plaintiffs’ rights. As of this filing, the Park has not responded.
COUNT I (Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182)
20. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
21. Title III of the ADA guarantees that individuals with disabilities shall have full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.
22. Individual Plaintiffs are legally blind and are individuals with disabilities under the ADA.
23. The Park is a place of public accommodation under the ADA because it is both “a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation,” and a “a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181.
24. Paintball matches are a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation of the Park.
25. The Park is intentionally violating the ADA by refusing to allow the Individual Plaintiffs, because of their blindness, to participate in paintball matches, even after being notified that such a policy constitutes discrimination.
26. As a result of the Park’s wrongful conduct, BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, requiring Defendant to remedy the discrimination.
27. BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
COUNT II (Violation of the Maryland White Cane Law, Md. Code Ann., Human Servs. §§ 7-704, 707)
28. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
29. The Maryland White Cane Law guarantees that individuals with disabilities receive full and equal rights and privileges with respect to places of public accommodations.
30. Individual Plaintiffs are legally blind and are individuals with disabilities under the Maryland White Cane Law.
31. The Park is a place of public accommodation because it is both a place of recreation and entertainment and is a place to which the general public is invited.
32. Paintball matches are a right or privilege of the Park.
33. The Park is intentionally violating the Maryland White Cane Law by refusing to allow the Individual Plaintiffs, because of their blindness, to participate in paintball matches, even after being notified that such a policy constitutes discrimination.
34. As a result of the Park’s wrongful conduct, BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Human Servs. § 7-707(
, requiring Defendant to remedy the discrimination.
COUNT III (Declaratory Relief Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201)
35. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 6
C. § 12205; and
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by 42 U.S.C.
36. BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs contend, and believe that the Park denies, that its policy of denying blind customers the opportunity to participate in paintball matches fails to comply with applicable laws including, the ADA and the Maryland White Cane Law.
37. A judicial declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this court:
A. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA and/or the Maryland White Cane Law;
B. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA and the Maryland White Cane Law;
D. Grant such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. December 12, 2011
__/s/ Gregory P. Care___________________ Stuart O. Simms, Bar No. 27090 Gregory P. Care, Bar No. 29060 Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410-962-1030 Fax: 410-385-0869 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OJS 44 (Rev. 12/07)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1-1 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS (
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
© Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff
’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant
’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
and One Box for Defendant)
Citizen of This State ’ 1 Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State
CitizenorSubjectofa Foreign Country
’ 6 ’ 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 110 Insurance ’ 120 Marine ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 140 Negotiable Instrument ’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment ’ 151 Medicare Act
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
(Excl. Veterans) ’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits
’ 190 Other Contract ’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 196 Franchise
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 245 Tort Product Liability ’ 290 All Other Real Property
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce
460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service
850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange
875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410
890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act
895 Freedom of Information Act
900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice
950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Appeal to District ’ 7 Judge from
’ 1 Original Proceeding
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from
State Court Appellate Court
Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict Reopened another district Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
of Business In Another State ’ 3 ’ 3 ForeignNation
’ 310 Airplane ’ 315 Airplane Product
Liability ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Slander
’ 330 Federal Employers’ Liability
’ 340 Marine ’ 345 Marine Product
Liability ’ 350 Motor V ehicle
’ 355 Motor V ehicle Product Liability
’ 360 Other Personal Injury
’ 362 Personal Injury - Med. Malpractice
’ 365 Personal Injury - Product Liability
’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product
’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability
’ 610 Agriculture ’ 620 Other Food & Drug ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 630 Liquor Laws
’ 640 R.R. & Truck ’ 650 Airline Regs. ’ 660 Occupational
Safety/Health ’ 690 Other
’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark
’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act
’ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations ’ 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act
’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)
’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609
’ 441 V oting ’ 442 Employment ’ 443 Housing/
Accommodations ’ 444 Welfare
’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - Employment
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - Other
’ 440 Other Civil Rights
’ 510 Motions to V acate Sentence Habeas Corpus:
’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 463 Habeas Corpus -
Alien Detainee ’ 465 Other Immigration
Magistrate (specify) Judgment
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
__________ District of __________
) ) )
v. ) Civil Action No. )
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
’ Ipersonallyservedthesummonsontheindividualat(place )
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual)
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) on (date)
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ’ Other (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $
, who is
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
on (date) ; or
Printed name and title
All content in above posts appears like in the original document except for a few *'s that cluttered the document in the forum format. If you believe I have edited this document unjustly please feel free to contact me and I will send you the original PDF I took it from.